Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond annotations – it does not describe the return shape, pagination, or what "hidden meta-information" consists of.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No padding or redundancy, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema the description should clarify what data is returned and how it differs from get_quiz_hidden_options, but it does neither. For a simple read-only single-param tool the gaps are narrow, but the ambiguous "meta-information" and overlapping sibling leave it only minimally viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (quiz_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline for a fully-covered single-param schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb ("Возвращает") and a resource ("скрытую мета-информацию виджетов опроса"), so the general intent is discernible. However, "мета-информация" is vague about what is actually returned, and the title ("Скрытые опции вопросов" – hidden question options) does not match the widget framing in the description. Most importantly it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling get_quiz_hidden_options.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The near-identical sibling get_quiz_hidden_options makes this omission costly – the agent is given no basis for choosing between them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.